What does God think about the separation of church and state?

If you say a prayer on the 4th of July, and thank God for the independence to have a government that calls for the separation of church and state, how do you reconcile that with God? How do you spin it? Do you say, "Well, God, it's a big tent"? Or: "Sorry, God, but we have to do it in order to keep the peace between us, the true believers, and the wayward others." We could go with the "At least we're able to have religion, unlike the commies of yore" angle. If you have the inclination, can you help me with a prayer? I would appreciate it. Thanks.

King

:dilemma:

and state. The main point is to keep the government from pushing a particular religion off on the people. It is not to keep religion out of the government or country. Frankly I think that God is too smart to want to be involved in the government of any country. Remember that you do not have to be religious to be an honest person.

would the Baptist God have to say about that? The Mormon God would pitch a hissy. Your God is too smart to be involved, but the republican Jerry Falwell's God is an idiot. How can this be expressed in a prayer for the 4th?

And a whole lot of false believers!

That's what made this country great, the freedom to choose to believe in what you want without someone telling you you're wrong.

and dellusional

what are your beliefs? do you have any? why would this poster's beliefs be any more or less delusional or arrogant than yours?

sP

But he did give us the ten commandments as a guide and then send us Jesus to help us understand them and to guide us in our life
And Jesus gave us the lords prayer which says it all as far as Jesus was concerned.
You know it...Our Father who art in hevan... Give us this day our daily bread...Forgive us...as we forgive...
And he also told us not to pray in public like the hypocrites do so if you were to pray on the forth you should do so in private.
And he also told us to "Render to Cesar that which is Cesar's" which was remarkable considering the Romans were pagans and an occupying force in his country. But still he told us let it be.
Does none of this sound like the "Baptist God" that you know? then that god is a lie and the author of it.

the "pushing" is only a minor aspect.


The true meaning of separation of Church and State IS to keep "God" AWAY from public affairs, based upon the assertion that religion is a PRIVATE affair, not a public one. The only role the State has in this story is to ENSURE that nobody is persecuted for one's beliefs and has the right to worship whoever/whatever he/she wants, including building places of prayer. So of course secularism/laicity bans prayers and other religious displays in public schools and all public offices, speeches, references, oaths, coins etc... and first of all doesn't give any tax deductions, because it is UNFAIR to the groups which are not concerned. Religious marriage has no legal value. It can be only a private arrangement according to one's beliefs, etc...
And most of all governmental decisions must be made from a secular reasoning and NOT on principles based on a religious belief. In France if Chirac said "I am against abortion because it's against my beliefs", he'll be in deep doodoo. He has the right to think it, but working in a way or another to prevent abortion (theoretical example) after such a declaration would put him in a terrible situation, and probably raise a case for impeachment. But he goes to mass now and then and everybody thinks it's OK.

take this amendment from the Japanese Constitution (btw written by an American)

"No religious organization shall receive any privileges from the State, nor exercise any political authority. No person shall be compelled to take part in any religious act, celebration, rite or practice. The State and its organs shall refrain from religious education or any other religious activity."


So what you put as a "main point" is only a result, not a source.

him as the chairman of the party at their recent convention. I want to know what county he lives in and what he used as proof of residence.

At Saturday morning's prayer meeting, party leader Tina Benkiser assured them that God was watching over the two-day confab.
"He is the chairman of this party," she said against a backdrop of flags and a GOP seal with its red, white and blue logo.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/religion/stories/DN-gopreligion_04tex.ART.State.Edition1.903cb29.html

"Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's" (Mark 12:13-17)

Define "God"... define which version of that "God"... while fighting the Istook RFA Amendment years ago I learned that truly smart folks, if I recall correctly even Pat Robertson, don't want to go there out of fear that it may not be their version of "God" that "wins".

Thank who you choose too. Thank those who have fought for true Freedom; thank our forefathers who wrote the Declaration of Independance and designed the Constitution many of us still hold dear; thank which ever "Divine" you feel called to support for the strength, intelligence, etc needed... IMO it doesn't really matter since I don't believe in a Divine that needs me to "spin" anything, s/he knows my heart and that's what matters... you can't BS the Divine. ;)

I'm thinking maybe Falwell 6:66 but.... ??? :evilgrin:

As a leaning-toward-Christianity person, I recall that Jesus said something about "render unto Cesar what is Cesar's." And, "my kingdom is not of this world." That's one reason why I, like many other Christians, believe that the Church and the State can and should operate in different spheres.

The other reason is that no church has a perfect understanding of God, or can prove that God actually exists. Religious belief is a matter of faith, not certainty. Government shouldn't be put in the hands of people who, like GWB, think that their direct connection to God gives them special authority.

to not foist their personal beliefs upon me and my family.

I pray that they have to the wisdom to understand that although they may be passionate about their beliefs, that others may not share their passion or their beliefs.

I pray that they have the human compassion and heart to understand that other people have their own deeply cherished and hard won beliefs.

I pray that they have minds open enough to see how to settle their religious and political differences without killing each other and destroying each others lives.

I pray that they understand that change is inevitable - but that struggle is optional.

both the church and the government. Besides that, spiritual matters are personal, public matters are, well... public, methinks. If a policymaker wants to consult with their deity prior to making policy, that's fine, but they should keep it to themselves, because to do otherwise makes them look a little soft in the head.

God can't think if he/she doesn't exist.

Everywhere I go, I see/hear GOD. I drive down the road, passing churches with signs "Ours is a Powerful God."

On DU, discussion after discussion about GOD.

On tv, on the radio, in magazines, on currency.

This faith, this suspsension of belief, this mysticism, is perpetuating suffering and justifying slaughter, just as it has done for centuries. Have we not evolved one iota beyond the Druids, the Aztecs, the Summarians? We might as well be painting on cave walls with charcoal sticks.

Please read "The End of Faith" by Sam Harris
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0393327655/sr=8-1/qid=1150119042/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-7332698-1984110?%5Fencoding=UTF8

<SNIP>
Simply stated, any belief system that speaks with assurance about the hereafter has the potential to place far less value on the here and now. And thus the corollary -- when death is simply a door translating us from one existence to another, it loses its sting and finality. Harris pointedly asks us to consider that those who do not fear death for themselves, and who also revere ancient scriptures instructing them to mete it out generously to others, may soon have these weapons in their own hands. If thoughts along the same line haunt you, this is your book.--Ed Dobeas
</SNIP>

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

un-Constitutional, per Jefferson.

Gobble gobble.

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

there damn well should be.



Sid

For an elected official to tout his or her religious belief or affilation as somehow relevant to their qualification for that office is contrary to this clause. That it is so is easily seen if one considers how they'd react if an atheist campaigned claiming that their dissociation with religion made them more qualified. After all, a "religious test" would be for the presence or absence of such belief - and the phrase could only be meaningful if interpreted in both senses.

It isn't the government we need to worry about, but those who lobby for religious groups who wish to exert pressure on the government. They have succeeded in the past already, inserting "under God" into the Pledge of Allegiance, and twice with currency, one with "In God We Trust" and in some of the symbology on the currency. And the US gives tax breaks to established religious groups which are most often Christian, or some offshoot of it.

It is the popularity of such preachers as Falwell, Robertson, Franklin Graham, and others of their ilk that contaminate the ability of the current government to act without pandering to them. Their influence is significant, and any weak-kneed government (like ours is currently) will bow to them just to keep the peace. Until we have a leadership that can ignore the call of the RRR, we will be beset with them and their influence peddling, their prejudices, hatred, and intolerance.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

are so brazen as to believe that they can know or understand what goes on in the mind and intent of the Almighty.

Thou shalt not kill. Would I be brazen to believe that God does not want me to kill anyone?

as you know.

The ten commandments are quite clear to me.
Nothing complicated about it.
And to all that other stuff you call the lessons of religion it is all the dogmas of man not the lessons that God and Jesus taught us.
When asked how one received eternal life Jesus said "Follow the ten commandments" Nothing else just the commandments.

"Thou shalt not kill"

Except for war. Or self-defense. Right? Or abortion. Oh, wait. No, that's not clear, is it?

"Honor thy father and mother"

Even if they are abusive?

"Thou shalt not steal"

What about the cliche example of a mother stealing bread to feed her starving children?

"Thou shalt not covet"

The whole capitalistic economy is based on people coveting things so they can improve their lot in life.

Naw, not that complicated at all. Clear moral edicts that always apply in every situation, right?

Though shall not kill means just that.
But that is not to say that we can go through life the way the world is and not break one of those commandments. But if we do we must acknowledge it as such no matter what the justification for it was and no mater how unavoidable it was.
It is just a mater of taking responsibility for our actions and relying on the mercy of god and the forgiveness of others to get us by.

Are you saying that if your parents put out cigarettes on your arms, locked you in a closet for days, and beat you senseless on a whim, that you should still honor them? And if you don't, YOU'RE the one who's in trouble?

But first you would get away from them and then turn them into the police to be tried and punished for there disobedience to the commandments of God and there violation of the laws of the land.
Don't you get it. None of us can go through this life without committing some trespass because this worlds full of people that do not follow the ten commandments as written.
The difference in war is when we feel that we do a good thing by killing the enemy, and not recognizing that we do an evil act and disobey the commandments of god. But we do it because we must and we should accept the fact that is is wrong and ask for forgiveness for that trespass. and then do our best to never do it again.
The Commandments are not a trap to catch you in, they are a guideline for a peaceful and happy life if we can get the majority to follow them.

Your precious commandments barely begin to cover the range of moral issues we face today. Some of them directly conflict with the idea of separation of church and state. Another conflicts with the root of capitalism. You seem to say that it's OK to break one, as long as you had a good reason and are sorry afterward. Then what's the point?

Keep your commandments to yourself and don't try to push them on a majority who have vastly superior moral systems.

But I will not go there because you do not seem to be in the mood for discussion of ideas.
But I must correct you on what you thought I said.
What I said was that it is NOT OK to break the commandments and if we should for any reason do so we should be genuinely sorry and seek repentance.

You're in no mood for discussion, you just want to shove your religious agenda on the majority. You've said so.

to swallow your religious propaganda.

Um, no, you don't try to get secular authorities like the TAXPAYER-FUNDED police to punish people for breaking YOUR god's alleged laws.

That's a blatant disregard for the SoCaS you're exhibiting.

I am the way, the truth and the life...no man comes to the Father but by me...

Must have been the wrong bible...

sP

I would love to explain that to you but I must go to work now. I will try to post later if you like

look forward to it if you have the time...

sP

To understand an out of context quote you must know the context in which it was said; Which means to do it justice one should read all of John 14. But here it is edited to the bone to make the context easier to see.


John 14

1. Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.
2. In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.
3. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.
4. And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know.
5. Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way?
6. Jesus saith unto him, I am the way,....

So sum up what we have heard"
He tells them "don't worry you believe in god so believe in me. My fathers house has many mansions and when I die I will go and prepare a place for you to go after you die and you will know the way" And Thomas ask How will we know the way and Jesus says "I am the way"
And the rest of the chapter is Jesus explaining it to them;

7. If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.
8. Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
9. Jesus saith unto him, have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father;

And then almost gives up on them and gives them a choice:

11. Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.

The works healing the sick and blind and his miracles of course they had witnessed and that is why they followed him because the works proved him.
And he ends it with:

17. Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with

perhaps I missed something in your post...but I was specifically looking for where Jesus says to follow the 10 Commandments and that is all you have to do. One of the basic premises of Christianity (at least the major forms of it) is that Jesus came because we could not bear up under the law and that he was to be the sacrifice that paid for our sins. And the forgiveness of sins is predicated on belief that Christ came to fulfill this purpose.

Is there something I missed? Looks like it might have been cut off there in verse 17...

sP

I accept no dogma that i have heard but trust my own understandings and my ability to understand the written word to give me answers.
The reason Jesus came is in the first few verses of the previous cut and paste. He came to prepare a place for us. and this could lead to a long conversation to completely understand the why and wherefore of it. But you could discover it for your self if you put aside all that you have heard of what the bible is supposed to say and read it for your self.
But here in Mathew 19 is the part you are looking for.

16. And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
17. And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
18. He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
19. Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
20. The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?
21. Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.
\
And notice that jesus did not require him to be perfect.

of scripture. Christ came to do many things. He came to provide a method of salvation. He came to show us the Father. He came to teach us and uplift us. He returned to heaven to prepare a place for us and to provide intercession.

You tell me to read. I assure you I have and I would guess more than you have (not said nor meant in a disparaging way, but seminary does that to you). The texts of the bible are open to many interpretations and thus many of the Christian denominations we see today. However, to say you accept no man's interpretation save your own is a little dangerous. Many good men (and some bad) have read and put much thought into the scriptures and some of those thoughts are pretty darned good ones. I apply what I hear and read to my own interpretations of scripture and do my best to reconcile them or discard that which makes less sense (taking into context that which is being sought).

There is no need for further cut and paste, zeemike. Just give me a reference and I will either know it...or I can look it up where memory fails.

thanks for the continued discussion:
sP

But i do it because many will not bother to look it up for themselves and may never have actually read it in the context it was meant in.
Bow the following is my interpretation of the new testament and the good news that Jesus had for us.
And while I agree he came to do many things the most important of them was to first convince the disciples that there was life after death and that they could attain it.
And he did that by resurrecting his body and dwelling among them so that they could see that he was still alive. and then the promise that they could follow him to one of his fathers mansions that he had prepared for them after there deaths.
What he did was provide them with an escape from the cycle of life and death that man faces.
And that is why The Saviour of Man (or the Christ)is an appropriate title
And so you see that my position is not all that t dangerous because I believe in Him and all that he taught us in those 5 books in the bible. And my mission is not to convert anyone to Christianity but to act as an advocate for the the teachings of Jesus which I believe to be true and just in every case.
And that goal is not as noble as saving souls or tending to the needy but it is just my part in this wonderful psychodrama we call life.

died for our sins to get into Heaven.

And I agree with you that the lessons of religion are mostly unclear man-written versions of what man thinks God wants.

BTW, the 10 commandments are very clear indeed and I understand them and try to live by them, but the Bible is certainly much more than a list of 10 things we must and must not do...as you know.

And he told the man he had only to obey the ten comendments...nothing else did jesus ever say.

What you refer to, the accepting of jesus as blab blab blab...is the dogma of men. Men have said that not the master.
And right you are the bible is a lot more than just ten commandments, it is history , poetry, philosophy and a lot more. but it is not to be confused in the manner it is today using out of context snips to uphold the dogma.

"What you refer to, the accepting of jesus as blab blab blab...is the dogma of men. Men have said that not the master.
And right you are the bible is a lot more than just ten commandments, it is history , poetry, philosophy and a lot more. but it is not to be confused in the manner it is today using out of context snips to uphold the dogma." are certainly not the teachings of our organized Christian churches today. I am in complete agreement with your assessment.

no man comes to the Father except by me? and the ever popular 3:16 passage from the Gospel of John? Certainly sounds like something Jesus may have said...

sP

And when was it written? Jesus may or may not have said this. I happen to think that he probably did, but the Bible was written by men hundreds of years after the death of Jesus and his disciples so there is no actual record of his time and what he actually said.

within 60 years of his death...almost all of them by the time 100 years had passed. And if you discount the Gospel of John...you might as well discard all of it on the same logic...

sP

mouth? Don't stories that spread by word of mouth change drastically after even a short time much less 60 to 100 years? It is my experience that they do. My question...is Christianity about placing our faith in God or the men who wrote the Bible?

you have to look at what men have written. Without oral and written histories there would be little or nothing upon which to base one's faith. And just as a note, there are plenty of oral stories/traditions who experienced little change over the years before being written down. Look at how the Koran was originally transmitted. How careful Hebrew scholars were to write the Word of God. Even the slightest mistake would result (in some cases) in the discarding of entire texts only to be re-written.

As oral traditions were very common at the time, it would not be unlikely for the Gospel stories to remain much unchanged from origin to the written instance. The Gospel of John was believed to be written by John himself (even the 21st chapter which appears to come after the close of the book in the 20th).

We can chose to believe or not based on what we read. I will not condemn you for what you choose to believe, however, if you believe in one of the Gospels...you would likely believe in them all.

sP

exchange.

Some questions: "And just as a note, there are plenty of oral stories/traditions who experienced little change over the years before being written down." How can anyone possibly know that as a fact, especially when decades or more have passed before anything is written? That is a "trust me" line.

"As oral traditions were very common at the time, it would not be unlikely for the Gospel stories to remain much unchanged from origin to the written instance." - same question as above.

"The Gospel of John was believed to be written by John himself" - your own words are contradictory as in this quote from a previous post..."actually...most of it was probably MOSTLY written within 60 years of his death..."

And, with respect, you cannot "condemn" anyone for anything - that is something that only God can do. I know that is just a tiny matter of semantics, but the word "condemn" or the phrase "I will not condemn you..." is pretty strong and condescending. I have a thick skin and we have had a friendly exchange, but it might rile someone else into a nasty response.

to your first question : You cannot really know anything as fact from oral histories so you have a point there. But all of the bible and many other religious texts came into being in the same way. So, do you pick and choose? Or do you trust? It is all a matter of faith.

and the second : The passing of stories via oration was indeed common in the era and before. I do not have a text reference for it but I will see what I can find...no promises though as I am 'supposed' to be working (wink wink nudge nudge :-) ).

And I did mean within 60 years of Jesus' death...not John's. It is surmised that John wrote his Gospel during his travels prior to his death (but of course no one can prove that tidbit any more than they can prove who REALLY wrote anything).

Oh, and for the condemnation remark...please don't take offense. I merely meant to say that it is not my place to condemn anyone for their beliefs.

I guess the crux of it all comes down to faith. You will believe what you believe based on many things in your life. And for me, I chose not to throw out the Gospels as 'rumor' or 'heresay' simply because we don't have an original copy typewritten in triplicate with the stamp of the local notary. Neither would I expect anyone of any faith. I believe as I do because if Jesus did indeed live (and I believe he did) he was a pretty cool guy and had some beatiful ideas about how we are to live in relation with one another and in relation to God. I follow his teachings. I do my best to live up to them though I quite frequently fail.

Pleasure chatting with you...the ball is in your court if you wish to continue!

subjectProdigal

Which is it?

not what God or Jesus gave us

God gave the law...was Moses just cracked? Because he was the only one there when the 10 Commandments were written down as well. Either he IS or IS NOT cracked...which is it?

sP

But was specifically designed for the new nation of Israel that was being created in the wilderness.
Moses was harsh and punitive and perhaps God told him to be that way in order to get under control a nation that once worshiped idols and were burdened with the culture of Egypt.
And the story suggest that it worked very well, changing them into a coherent nation in only forty years.
So let's not confuse the laws of Moses with the Commandments of God. The commandments were designed to be forever and the law, like all law, is meant to change with time and circumstance.

was done away with...and that includes Mosaic law (which was handed down by God per the texts...not made up by Moses). I am not confused about which is which. But Jesus never says follow the 10 Commandments and you will be saved. If you have seen that I would love to see it as well...because that would invalidate his entire reason for coming in the flesh. If we could just obey the 10 Commandments then there would be no need for his sacrifice.

The God of the Bible is unchanging (according to it's own words). If that is true...then the words of the law handed down to Moses would not be put aside. Any infraction would require attonement. But my point still applies. If the 10 Commandments were from God then so is the law. You cannot have one without the other. There is no logical reason to believe the 10 Commandments were from God and that the law was not. It is not about to whom it applies.

sP

Most people don't read the whole thing but drift away after the beatitudes.

17. Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.
18. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

He came to fulfill the law
And yes Jesus did say that to achieve eternal life we needed to follow the commandments in Mathew 19;

16. And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
17. And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
18. He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
19. Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
20. The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?
21. Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.

you will notice here that Jesus did not require him to be perfect.

You seem to be missing the whole "come and follow me" part of that message. The whole point of this message is that the commandments cannot be kept at all times and where the law demands perfection, Jesus in his coming sacrifice does not. Jesus does not say that the 10 are all you have to do...they are a part of what you should attempt to do and that perfection is not required.

Quoting scripture to me is pretty much a waste of time. I have read it and have access to it should I need it. You are even quoting scripture that goes against the statement that I am trying to discuss with you here : When asked how one received eternal life Jesus said "Follow the ten commandments" Nothing else just the commandments. Nothing else? What of the "and come and follow me."?

sP

"But if thou will be perfect" when the man said but I have followed this all my life.
That passage is clear to me that the answer to his question was follow the commandments, but it may not be clear to you, and i can do nothing more to make you see it my way.
But you don't have to see it my way or any other way.If you are comfortable with the way you see it then that is fine. I am not here to push any agenda or any religion, but I am willing to discuss it on civil terms.

but you are right, I cannot see it that way. The "if thou wilt be perfect" is VERY important. Christ is saying that perfection is not and cannot be achieved through the Commandments and the Law and that perfection is what God requires without atonement for sin. The command then becomes 'follow me'.

But hey...you know what? I think we are close to the same page here. You believe that the Commandments are a good thing to follow and so do I. The only disagreement comes on believing in and chosing Christ as part of the deal.

Cheers...
David

But no Jesus is not saying that perfection cannot be achieved, because he achieved it and he taught the disciples to be perfect as much as possible. But the one that asked the question was not interested in perfection
But the important point that is made in this is that you do not have to be perfect to achieve eternal life. And that should be comforting to most of us that are not inclined or able to sell all our goods and walk in the path the Jesus took.

But truly it is not my intention to get you to believe in Jesus. It does not matter to me if you think of him as a myth. Because what is important is that you accept that the TEACHINGS of Jesus are just and true. And that these teachings even if they came from some anonymous story teller are valid in todays world as they were then.

just slightly differently than you do. To my education through the scriptures Jesus was making a huge point here about perfection. The point is that perfection cannot be achieved...the only reason he achieved is due to the fact that he was at the same time God and Man. The man asking the question IS seeking perfection. He has asked in essence, "I have done all the things commanded of me by the 10 Commandments; what else must I do?" And Jesus rightly answers him...you must do these things and follow me. Live by the commandments and trust in me for the times when you fail to live up to the law...

That is my 0.02...

sP

And it is a good one.
And I do wonder and maybe you have too, if any of the disciples of Jesus attained that perfection before they died. My guess is that at least a few did.

is a problem. Too many DO justify killing in the name of their "Lord." The Christians have perpetuated such reasoning for centuries, including the Crusades, the Inquisition and other atrocious events. But as I said in another posting, it was as a result of these events that the founding fathers of the US decided that religion needed to be distinctly separate from the government for just such a reason. People could worship whatever god, gods or other deities they wished without ever having to worry about being interrogated or killed for what they wished to believe.

it's a good reason, anyway

deserved to die, then many of theses same so called religious people would label you as unpatriotic if you refused to help carry out their will. This is happening every day in Iraq. I often wonder if anyone actually believes in any of the TEN COMMANDANTS.

I'll let you know...

only deluded fools.

And you of another.
The kind that says I know it all and anyone that doesn't think like me is a fool.

only that there is no god.

logic dictates that man created god in his image, not the other way around.

Logic leads one to believe. There is a difference

semantic games are just that.

logic dictates that man created god in his image, NOT the other way around.

And that is not logical in such a complex universe.
You could have said
Logic suggest
Logic implies
logic leads us to believe.
If logic dictates to you then how open could be your mind?

man created god in his image, not the other way around.

my mind is very open...even on this subject- i've poured thru lots and lots of info, many sources over many years...and when you logically examine it all in context, the conclusion is obvious.

but- if you some new info to which i haven't been privy- i'd be glad to hear it...

Just as it is just as obvious to me that the other is true. How can that be does one of us lie and the other possess the truth?
Or one blind the other not?
Or do we all see through the glass darkly.
And it is also possible that each of us has a little peace of the truth and thinks that is all there is to it.

or you haven't really examined enough of it enough.

or you've turned a blind eye to the logical conclusion, in favour of deeply ingrained superstitions.

or any one of a number of things...

but ultimately- it's your problem, not mine.

I suspect that I have a few years on you and so I have had time to take in quite a lot I have been an atheist, became interested in spirituality and the occult and have even read a lot of La Vay and was fascinated with his satanic ritual for a while. ( let me say here I do not practice religion just study it)And I am well read in the Bible. And did some in eastern mysticism.
But I would say that neither of us has a problem. Unless we become insecure and want someone to validate it, and I don't think you need that.

i've found my answers.

to me, the real and natural world is much more interesting and engaging than indulging in other people's fantasies...especially considering how big the world is and how short our lives are.

Then you are not far from truth. I see no problem there.

He liked the idea; he set up a theocracy, and gave people a chance. Twice.

Both served their purpose: people couldn't live up to the requirements of the theocracy. He disbanded the theocracies; they reject him, so be it. God's patient, when he wants to be.

He came. His kingdom isn't of this world. He died. Next time around, he'll be in charge. Jesus has many values. One is patience. One that Christians these days should emulate; Jesus didn't strive to set up his own kingdom, and he didn't tell Christians to do what he didn't.

He didn't condemn the Romans for not enforcing Sabbath laws. He didn't condemn the Romans for not requiring that taxes be raised to help the poor.

But you'll never have complete separation of church and state, and having the government not impose some tangential aspects of religious culture on the non-religious is nearly impossible. Thanksgiving Day may be unnecessary; but having Christmas be a federal holiday seems, even to me (a person who doesn't observe Christmas in the least), to be unavoidable. I'd prefer having Friday off and working Sunday, and having the government follow the same work week; but that's also not likely to happen.

Your prayer will just waft up into the sky and be unheard.

Does "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and render unto God the things that are God's" ring a bell?

i.e., an onmipotent consciousness in the universe, it is unlikely that he does a day by day flyby over our country or even our planet. The universe is so huge that such an entity would be pretty busy creating new worlds, new species, new beings, and everything else. A quick check every couple million years is all he would be able to manage, but if he sent a few representatives through the years, they could get back to him and give him their reports.

If Jesus was as such, then the last report went to the deity about 2000 years ago, which really isn't more than the blink of an eye for a master deity. He'll be back in another age, another millennium.

I think that it has been men--literally, who have warped whatever message came from such a divine entity to their own end, creating a "god" who is less than an omnipotent being, who is as greedy, belligerent, power-hungry, and psychotic as they were/are. Their god is a warmonger, an intolerant being who harbors hatred and envy, who is on someone's "side" instead of being on everyone's side, and who does exactly what they want him to do.

Because Mankind also has other prophets besides Jesus, the men in charge have pitted these beings against each other in their own mythology, and made their own prophet stand out as the one true prophet, with the attempt to leave all others in the dust.

If "God" as an omnipotent being were watching, he would be laughing his ass off--we are as close to him as ants are to us in the macrocosm, or even less--like one celled organisms in a far elbow of the galaxy known to us as the Milky Way.

I know that most people want a "personal" god, but I can't help but wonder what the civilizations on other planets feel toward a Creator--do they worship one at all? Or are they far beyond us in their traditions, customs and science to the point where Creation mythology doesn't matter anymore?

Any "god" that is represented on planet Earth is the creation of the people worshipping him/her. As knowledge and science have progressed, the purpose of a god becomes smaller, as we have come to accept science as a far more accurate method of dealing with the mysteries of the universe. But the power-hungry men who have gained power only through their worship of a god figure, have found ways to bring their god back into the era, and made him/her more spiteful, more personally corrupt, more intolerant of all other ideals, and less of a being of true mystery than one of human fallibility and failings.

I harbor no ill will to anyone who wishes to believe--that is their prerogative. What I do hate is those in power who wish to suppress all personal gods in favor of their own version of such a deity, and shove down our throats the limited visions of such a "god." The purpose of separating church and state was precisely this: to let everyone worship as they wished, without fear of retribution from the government. The fact that our country had this as a basis makes it very important to remember that when America was founded as a country, it was with full intent that religious beliefs were kept from the government to avoid such mistakes of history as the Inquisition, the earlier history in the US of the Salem Witch Trials (about 100 years previously) and the Crusades.

People are always on a "mission" to save the "barbarians" who worship other entities. Here in the US, missionaries and others sought out the Native Americans to take away their gods and replace them with the Christian versions. Because these people had different manners of expressing belief, the Europeans believed them to be savages, but in truth, the oppression of Native Americans gave way to atrocities which came about because of intolerance, hatred and prejudice.

While Christianity has spread throughout the Western World, it still has a very dark side which is kept alive through some sects of faith. To me, personally, the sects of evangelicalism, fundamentalism and creationism are far more destructive than instructive, and their pontificators are the real antagonists of global war, hatred and intolerance. One can't help but wonder what the world would be like if these fake, phony and downright hostile sects disappeared, along with their "leaders." Perhaps we would actually be able to establish an open dialogue with those in other parts of the world if religion didn't get in the way.

God, I know that out of the trillions and trillions of planets out there amongst the billions of galaxies that this planet is your super-duper favorite and not only that but America is your favoritest country and the Republicans are your bestest supporters but, um, God, why must you forsake all others?

God replied that he appreciated the question but he couldn't comment with an ongoing election campaign in the works.

Anyone who says otherwise is selling something.

I think he likes it.

The reason? Faith means nothing if it's forced on you. You must believe because you want to, not because you are coerced to.

"What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?
But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?
Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.
And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?
They say unto him, Caesar's.
Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's."

Seems like Jesus was pretty comfortable with the idea that giving tribute to tribute to His Father (the Church) was a wholly separate matter from giving Caesar (the state).

While we're getting all Biblical, see Matt 12:1-12:

"At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungered, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat.
But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day.
But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungered, and they that were with him;
How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?
Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?
But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple.
But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.
For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.
And when he was departed thence, he went into their synagogue:
And, behold, there was a man which had his hand withered. And they asked him, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath days? that they might accuse him.
And he said unto them, What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out?
How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the sabbath days."

This lesson was important enough that it was repeated in Mark 2:23-27:

"And it came to pass, that he went through the corn fields on the sabbath day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn.
And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful?
And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungered, he, and they that were with him?
How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?
And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath."

Seems like Jesus was also pretty laid back about those persnickety church rules.

as the sole deliverance from guaranteed fatal, utterly uncontrollable addictions, you will see that whatever this God is, it saves corporate businessmen right alongside homosexuals, gang-bangers, and drug dealers. And combinations thereof ;-)

Seemingly, whatever God is, it is loving and supportive and healing, and desirous that we grow regarding our actions and beliefs, and help each other regardless of class, race, and any other superfluous difference. The concept of an insular, punishing God is most likely a human projection, and is useful for behaviour modification and enforcing restrictive social structures and circular thought. And creating power structures that will not be questioned by its members.

...sounds like separation of church and state to me.

Also, when Jesus' followers wanted him to be their "earthly" leader and overthrow their rulers to take the kingship, Jesus' response was no: "I am no part of this world."

At least the kind of God that would be running a universe.

What would it care what a bunch of arrogant newcomers in the grand design, living on a minor planet, circling a less than average star, part of an unnoteworthy galaxy, among trillions of other galaxies?

We're only important to "God" or the universe because we tell ourselves we are.

Otherwise, I'm sure he would have done something about it.

I bet God laughs a lot.

God, that which is God's."

Or something like that.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=111840

though He has not seen fit to bless us with His wisdom, so far. I wonder what we're doing wrong?

Alternatively, the closely related God Almighty appears to be a recent, and active, member. There's also a jesus, though, so far, the Holy Spirit/Ghost hasn't made an appearance. Maybe they're working out the theology before that. You know how these sectarian battles can cause hassle ...